Johnson v. Flores et al

Filing 6

ORDER: Denying 5 plaintiff's motion to reconsider. (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/7/2009) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/8/2009: # 1 cs) (ys, COURT STAFF).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH JOHNSON, JR., Plaintiff, v. EDWARD C. FLORES; et al., Defendants. /

No. C 08-5425 SI (pr) ORDER

This pro se civil action was dismissed on April 13, 2009, due to plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee. He has now filed a motion for the "court to reconsider and reopen the case in order for plaintiff to pay the filing fee." Plaintiff was notified more than four months before the dismissal that he had to pay the fee or file a pauper application and did not do either. The court's dismissal was not in error. The motion for reconsideration and to reopen is DENIED. (Docket # 5.) The court notes that there is an obvious alternative for plaintiff: this action was dismissed without prejudice, and plaintiff was clearly informed in the order of dismissal that he could file a new action for which he pays the filing fee or files an in forma pauperis application with a new complaint to commence that new action. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 7, 2009 _______________________ SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge